I was wondering, is there any reason why Continental continues to order the 777-200ER, rather than converting their orders to the 777-200LR?

Delta seems to be very impressed with their 772LRs, and has basically standardized on it rather than the 772ER. From what I have heard, DL finds the 772LR to be more efficient than the 772ER. Is there any reason why other U.S. airlines (especially CO) don't follow in Delta's footsteps?

Commonality. The 772LR seems to be a niche aircraft that is more efficient on long hauls that the 772ER can operate. It must be due to the advanced wing. CO probably feels there are few routes that need the 772LR and commonality is more important.
The question should be if someone is going to come up with winglets or raked wing upgrades for the 772ER.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 1):Commonality. The 772LR seems to be a niche aircraft that is more efficient on long hauls that the 772ER can operate. It must be due to the advanced wing. CO probably feels there are few routes that need the 772LR and commonality is more important.
The question should be if someone is going to come up with winglets or raked wing upgrades for the 772ER.

How much different can they be? Both have GE90s. The raked wingtips are different. Can you tell me the specific differences?

Because CO decided to get the 787-8 for 2009 delivery and then 787-9 and add on a couple 772ERs to their large fleet to tide them over to 2009.

With the delays in the 787 to 2011 for their first planes, they had to continue to buy 77Es, when it might have made sense, in hindsight, to not buy the 787 and buy a fleet of 8-10 77Ls for their longer flights instead, taking 787-8s much later in the game.

Is CO having trouble operating their current routes with the 772ER? If not, why fly around the additional weight of the 772LR and pay nigher landing fees and other unnecessary costs? For example, landing fees are normally based on MTOW which according to Boeing is about 110,000 lb. higher for the 772LR than the 772ER.

CO has 25 787s on order which will be more economical on future long range routes. Few carriers have enough ultra-longhaul routes to warrant purchase of the 772LR as reflected by the fact that almost 9 years after the 772LR program was launched there have been only 49 orders, and only 10 in the past 2 years.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):I was wondering, is there any reason why Continental continues to order the 777-200ER, rather than converting their orders to the 777-200LR?

The simple answer is they might very well not need them. With polar routing over Russia, they are not adversely payload restricted to Asia from EWR. And depending on what their payload is, they might be doing okay to DEL and BOM.

I am sure GE will be happy to work a deal with CO to convert some 77E options to 77Ls should CO feel the need, but if they don't, then...

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):I was wondering, is there any reason why Continental continues to order the 777-200ER, rather than converting their orders to the 777-200LR?

Delta seems to be very impressed with their 772LRs, and has basically standardized on it rather than the 772ER. From what I have heard, DL finds the 772LR to be more efficient than the 772ER.

The 777-200LR is the same as their current 777-200ERs except with longer range but also a higher CASM, if anything CO would go for the 777-300ER which has a lower CASM. The 777-200LR does not provide any additional revenues (more seats) vs their current 777-200ERs , cargo is not the driving force behind many of these ultra long haul flights.

CO will wait for their 787-9s for the Ultra long haul routes, it's not like the economy is demanding those types of routes right now. The 787 delays mean CO's 787-9s will be delivered during an economic recovery period (hopefully), vs the near unprecedented period of economic turmoil airlines are currently operating.

There was discussion about a year back where some CO insider reported that while all eight orders were booked as 77Es, only the first two were definitely 77Es . It was not definite at that time what model the remaining six were going to be - the implication being that the six latter 77E orders could possibly be placeholders for 77L or 77W.

Is that door closed now - is it known for certain that the last six will definitely be 77Es?

The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 15):The 777-200LR does not provide any additional revenues (more seats) vs their current 777-200ERs , cargo is not the driving force behind many of these ultra long haul flights.

Cargo might not be a driving force, but surely HKG-EWR is one route where a 77L would carry a better payload. Or do Freight Forwarders prefer to put the freight onto 747Fs that will be doing a stop in Anchorage anyway?

If I am right, AC is the only airline from North America that operates 77Ws. Now that CO is flying into LHR, an extra 50 seats would make good use of the slots at that airport, even though the distance between IAH/EWR and LHR does not require the range of a 77W.

Anyway, I think I have read on this forum that CO likes to rotate its 777 fleet around the network, and would prefer not to have a sub fleet of 77L just to operate a small part of that network.

Quoting Alangirvan (Reply 17):Cargo might not be a driving force, but surely HKG-EWR is one route where a 77L would carry a better payload. Or do Freight Forwarders prefer to put the freight onto 747Fs that will be doing a stop in Anchorage anyway?

CO has been flying EWR-HKG nonstop for 8-9 years now with the 777-200ER, when they launched the route it was the longest nonstop in the World. They obviously are happy with the performance with the 777-200ER on the route and will wait another 3-4 years for the 787-9.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):I was wondering, is there any reason why Continental continues to order the 777-200ER, rather than converting their orders to the 777-200LR?

Why pay the extra $30m when you don't need the added capability? It is an a.net myth that airlines have to buy the latest aeroplanes. It's like buying a B747 when you only need a B767. You don't want the extra things that you are paying for - be it seats, range or payload.

Quoting FL787 (Reply 2):How much different can they be? Both have GE90s.

That's like saying 2 cars are the same if they both have Michelin tyres.

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 9):Viscount724....are you sure ? I believe I read in a very recent thread that landing fees were based on landing weight. I can't find the link right at this moment.

Airport fees are based on MTOW. ANSP fees are also based on MTOW. And there are standard values to use. Aircraft are not weighed individually. That's another a.net myth.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):The simple answer is they might very well not need them.

Quoting Alangirvan (Reply 17):Now that CO is flying into LHR, an extra 50 seats would make good use of the slots at that airport, even though the distance between IAH/EWR and LHR does not require the range of a 77W.

Depends: how are their loads, or - far more important - their yields to LHR? Having B77Ws just for LHR seems a bit of an expensive exercise: if they have, say, 3 or 4 routes which can - profitably - sustain a B77W, it might make sense, though even that is far from certain.

If you end up making (and these numbers are completely made up) $100,000 more on the extra seats and, perhaps, cargo that you can sell to LHR, but end up flying empty seats on some other routes, making you cut your revenue on those routes by a sum totalling more than those $100,000 you got extra out of LHR, you end up losing money looking at the complete picture.

If they cannot fill those extra 50 seats with reasonably yielding passengers, year-round, on a selection of routes that won't require them to park the aircraft on the ground for much time anywhere inbetween, it could work.

Whether that's the case, only CO knows for sure. Given the fact that they've not ordered the B77W yet, I'm inclined to think that they don't see a place for it in their fleet.

The 200LR has the wing and landing gear of the 300ER, has additional strengthening in the fuselage, a 13 ft longer wingspan than the 200ER, greater fuel capacity than the ER (without the AUX tank), is about a foot taller than the 200ER.

Quoting 9V-SPJ (Reply 22):The 200LR has the wing and landing gear of the 300ER, has additional strengthening in the fuselage, a 13 ft longer wingspan than the 200ER, greater fuel capacity than the ER (without the AUX tank), is about a foot taller than the 200ER.

More like a 300SP than a 200 variant? Has anyone bought the 300LR with Aux tanks?

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 19):Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 9):Viscount724....are you sure ? I believe I read in a very recent thread that landing fees were based on landing weight. I can't find the link right at this moment.
Airport fees are based on MTOW. ANSP fees are also based on MTOW. And there are standard values to use. Aircraft are not weighed individually. That's another a.net myth.

When Sunrise said "landing weight" I think he was referring to Maximum Landing Weight - which is what fees in the U.S. are based off of a majority of the time. It would be silly to think that each plane at an airport has to be weighed.

"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."

25 Stitch
: Well in this case, it would be more like the difference between a LandRover and a LandRover Sport. Same chassis and seating and cargo volume with the